The Supreme Court decision striking down three of four provisions in the Arizona immigration law is being greeted with great consternation ...from the left. Three-quarters of a loaf is not enough.
The New York Times announces on behalf of the liberal establishment elites that the Supreme Court “unanimously sustained the law’s centerpiece, the one critics have called its ‘show me your papers’ provision. It requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.” This part of the ruling, which merely confirms that local authorities can try to enforce immigration laws on the books, is enough to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for liberals.
The president leads the gloomy parade on this one. He is glum because local police have the right to enforce federal immigration laws. Well, if he doesn’t like existing law, he should put forth comprehensive immigration reform, including what he thinks appropriate enforcement would look like. Instead, he is insisting the states not enforce the law — this from the nation’s chief executive, who is charged with enforcement of the laws of the United States.
From my standpoint, the Arizona law, constitutional or not, is just bad policy, brought about by federal laxity and the president’s political cowardice. We shouldn’t have 50 different immigration laws, and the feds are obliged to enforce the law until it is changed by the constitutionally approved method — with a law passed by both houses (you know, before Obama amended Article II). In this, Obama has finally achieved the status of not being Bush. His predecessor helped craft and fought for a comprehensive immigration bill. Obama could have done the same, but didn’t.
Obama wants Congress to come find him in his office. (“They know where to find me.”) Well, what would he propose if they did? What does he want to do about the border, employer verification, family reunification and those in the military? Mitt Romney has responded to all that, so why can’t the president? And if he thinks legalization for those remaining should happen, he should say so.
You see it is Obama, not Romney, who has dragged his feet and hidden the ball. Why won’t he say what he wants to do on legalization? You’d think the press which is concerned about specificity would care. (That is the new talking point for the left, which is odd for backers of a candidate lacking comprehensive tax, entitlement or immigration plans.) No way — specificity is for the other guy.